Skeptic Project

As part of my historical methods class we're reading a book by James C. Scott titled "Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed."

http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Like-State-Condition-Institution/dp/0300078153/</p>

This book predates the Zeitgeist Movement (1998), but it could be a written critique of why Zeitgeist and all of this resource based economy nonsense, whether coupled to conspiracy theories or not, is doomed to failure. Or, worse, if it ever did get started, how and why it would probably result in the deaths of millions of people.

I'm not done with the book yet but I'm already struck by a couple of quotes that sound like they're talking directly about Zeitgeist/RBE. The RBE ideology is a prime example of what Scott calls "high modernist" ideology:

"[High modernism] is best conceived as a strong, one might even say muscle-bound, version of the self-confidence about scientific and technical progress, the expansion of production, the growing satisfaction of human needs, the mastery of nature (including human nature), and, above all, the rational design of social order commensurate with the scientific understanding of natural laws."

Sounds like Merola and Fresco could have written it, doesn't it?

"The troubling features of high modernism derive, for the most part, from its claim to speak about the improvement of the human condition with the authority of scientific knowledge and its tendency to disallow other competing sources of judgment.

Again, sounds exactly like the arrogance of TZM and RBE schemes in general. In explaining why high modernist schemes, whether implemented by states or not (and they almost always are) invariably fail, Scott says:

"First and foremost, high modernism implies a truly radical break with history and tradition....All human habits and practices that were inherited and hence not based on scientific reasoning--from the structure of the family and patterns of residence to moral values and forms of production--would have to be reexamined and redesigned...

The sources of this view are deeply authoritatian. If a planned social order is better than the accidental, irrational deposit of historical practice, two conclusions follow. Only those who have the scientific knowledge to discern and create this superior social order are fit to rule in the new age. Further, those who through retrograde ignorance refuse to yield to the new scientific plan need to be educated to its benefits or else swept aside."

In short, Scott is saying that all attempts to institute a high modernist ideology have failed, and they usually involve mass violence, millions of deaths and cruel oppression. Some of the examples he gets into include Soviet forced collectivization, collective villages in Tanzania, etc., or even non-bloody but equally failed examples, like the city of Brasilia.

I may do a blog post about this when I'm done with the book, but I thought I'd mention it and see if anyone has read it. It's a really interesting book, and should very quickly disabuse Zeitgeisters and RBE believers that their ideology isn't at best a starry-eyed fantasy, and at worst a prescription for mass chaos and state-sanctioned murder.

I'm not sure I fully agree with the last statement, but maybe my version of "high modernism" is a bit broader than Scotts. I don't consider a redesign of social norms authoritarian (or any more authoritarian than the current state of affairs), unless it is meant to be applied to the whole world under one central instrument of control, in which case choice becomes an illusion and force a necessity, but try to explain that to a TZMer.

Either way, thanks for the info. Book is ordered.

[TZMs ideology is] at worst a prescription for mass chaos and state-sanctioned murder.

That outcome (in a universe where TZM could gain any power) wouldn't surprise me.
Trying to fix bad solutions by force as a pretty common habit among detached wannabe-heroes.

Looks like an interesting book. I wonder if I can find an audiobook version. If not, I can always pull a Ben and claim I read it because I skimmed the reviews.

From the top rated review:

"In probing the pathology of planning, Scott brilliantly exposes how experts conflated aesthetics with efficiency. They believed that social and ecological organization was rational only insofar as it conformed to their visual aesthetic (here called 'high modernism'). This meant the repetition of identical units, preferably in the form of a geometrical grid."

Sounds exactly like The Venus Project. The obsession with domes, palm trees and identical buildings without doors and plumbing.

"What experts envisaged, of course, was how the thing appeared-from above-on a map or in a model. Along with aesthetics went gigantism, as scale too was confused with efficiency. The space of the plan existed outside geographical locality and historical contingency-obstacles to be eradicated. An ideal city, for example, could be sited anywhere in the world; once built, it would never change. Planners created new spaces in order to create new people, the productive and contented automatons imagined by (say) Frederick Taylor or Lenin."

Again, it sounds exactly like The Venus Project.

As a self-professed hater of Objectivism, this book looks right up my alley.

Interesting I may check out that book as well. RBOSE is a project not a group or a movement I don't think it would fit in the peramitures this book provides, at that unlike RBE open source has been implemented and tested and it works and many people go by it without the as Scott says it "Scott is saying that all attempts to institute a high modernist ideology have failed, and they usually involve mass violence, millions of deaths and cruel oppression.". That's why RBOSE was started to see if one can take this concept into the real world. I'm not here to say it will work but it has been proven to work in virtual environment and a few open source projects that are already out their in real life.

@Muertos,

If I can find an audiobook of it, I will definitely check it out. I just can't get myself to sit down and read books anymore.

I devoured Obama's Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope recently. Great books. Well, great audiobooks at any rate.

I do not believe that any type of Marxist/Communist/NewAgeEveryoneHugBullshit can be achieved without force. I especially do not believe that it can be sustained without increasing levels of force.

I do not go to work every day, pay taxes and buy new shoes because I am forced to. I do it because it makes my life easier and more comfortable. I can choose not to work. I can choose not to pay taxes. I can choose not to buy new shoes.

You cannot choose not to participate in an RBE model. The idea that someone wouldn't want to doesn't seem to occur to them.

That's like the time I asked Brenton how he would stop me from destroying the magical TVP future just for kicks, since there were no laws to keep me from doing it.

The notion never seemed to occur to him.

He was like "Why would you do that?"

My answer: I dunno, because I'm bored.

If it wasn't a form of socialism, TZM authority figures would not be so adamant about not aligning themselves with already existing socialist organizations. They're more interested in maintaining a brand name than achieving anything.

To me it sounds like technocracy without leadership, so... anarcho-technocracy

You cannot choose not to participate in an RBE model. The idea that someone wouldn't want to doesn't seem to occur to them.

That's the weird thing.

Why don't they just choose some self-reliant nation and "plan" on turning that one into a RBE? Why the whole world?

"Why don't they just choose some self-reliant nation and "plan" on turning that one into a RBE? Why the whole world?"

Because if its not all or nothing, they would actually have to do something.

By setting worldwide revolution as the benchmark, something that is unlikely to happen, it ensures that they never have to do anything more than "spread the word."

No one has to give up their free time to build anything. No one has to give up their money to support anything. No one has to give up their creature comforts to achieve anything. All they have to do is wait for the revolution, as that is the only acceptable benchmark to strive for.

Its slacker brilliance. You can feel like you're doing something without actually having to do something.

I call that religion.

Robotocracy, technocracy,

Either way, it's a social something. As horrible as it sounds, if socialism was shown to work despite killing thousands upon thousands of people, I would still consider it.

The problem is that even in the social states where there was little to no violence (Kibbutz, Robert Owen), it eventually devolved away from socialism. One could argue that Marxism is true in reverse.

Socialism has never worked for long on any considerable scale.

Either way, it's a social something. As horrible as it sounds, if socialism was shown to work despite killing thousands upon thousands of people, I would still consider it.

The problem is that even in the social states where there was little to no violence (Kibbutz, Robert Owen), it eventually devolved away from socialism. One could argue that Marxism is true in reverse.

The problem is that Marxism wasn't really any good at "designing" or fixing stuff, and that Marx (and most of the modern marxists) didn't really focus on that and some go so far as to say that it's not his job anyway*.

If economic systems were a car, Marxism would be able to describe the car in detail and explain some of its problems and why it breaks down regularly - which most of the regular mechanics (=economists) would be unable to do correctly, if they even would acknowledge the problem instead of blaming it on poor driving skills.

Marxism would not be able to fix the car, and the people who claimed to be Marxists AND able to fix the car were neither the former nor the latter.

Is Marxism still any useful if you wanna become a mechanic? Depends, cars have changed, and the main issue has changed from breaking down to consuming too much fuel.

*Reasoning behind that: As long as the masses don't care about the car, presenting them the fix won't necessarily excite them either, and if you try to do it w/o the masses, you'll probably end up at some point not giving a fuck about the masses.

You are so stupid, no Kuwait is not a resource based economy its a monarchy. If welfare was the sole criteria for living in a resource based economy, your ass would be living in a resource based economy already.

Get a job fool.

Jacque's robots would provide anything you wanted, have you ever read his opinions on morality? Talk about bankrupt.